62628 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No.
214 / Tuesday, November 6, 2007 / Notices
screws, rivets, welds or any other type
of fastener.6
On May 1, 2006, the Department
issued a scope ruling determining that
the ‘‘moon chair’’ was outside the scope
of the antidumping duty order because
it collapses rather than folds as a chair
subject to the order would fold, and it
does not have a back pad or seat pad
commonly found in folding chairs.
Moon chairs are described as containing
circular, fabric-padded, concave
cushions that envelope the user at
approximately a 105-degree reclining
angle. The fabric cushion is ringed and
supported by two curved 16-mm steel
tubes. The cushion is attached to this
ring by nylon fabric. The cushion is
supported by a 16-mm steel tube four-
sided rectangular cross-brace
mechanism that constitutes the moon
chair’s legs. This mechanism supports
and attaches to the encircling tubing
and enables the moon chair to be folded.
To fold the chair, the user pulls on a
fabric handle in the center of the seat
cushion of the chair.7
Continuation of Order
As a result of the determinations by
the Department and the ITC that
revocation of the AD order on folding
metal tables and chairs from the PRC
would likely lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping and material
injury to an industry in the United
States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of
the Act, the Department hereby orders
the continuation of the AD order on
folding metal tables and chairs from the
PRC. U.S. Customs and Border
Protection will continue to collect
antidumping duty cash deposits at the
rates in effect at the time of entry for all
imports of subject merchandise. This
review covers imports from all
manufacturers and exporters of folding
metal tables and chairs from the PRC.
The effective date of continuation of
this AD order will be the date of
publication in the Federal Register of
this Continuation Notice. Pursuant to
section 751(c)(2) of the Act, the
Department intends to initiate the next
five-year review of this order not later
than September 2012.
This five-year or ‘‘sunset’’ review and
notice are in accordance with section
6 See ‘‘Final Scope Ruling of the Antidumping
Duty Order on Folding Metal Tables and Chairs
from the People’s Republic of China (A–570–868);
Spencer Gifts, LLC’’ (July 13, 2005).
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
7 See ‘‘Final Scope Ruling of the Antidumping
Duty Order on Folding Metal Tables and Chairs
from the People’s Republic of China (A–570–868);
Mac Industries (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Jiaxing Yinmao
International Trading Company, Ltd and Fujian
Zenithen Consumer Products Company Ltd.’’ (May
1, 2005).
VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:55 Nov 05, 2007 Jkt 214001
751(c) of the Act and published
pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: October 31, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–21798 Filed 11–5–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–868]
Folding Metal Tables and Chairs From
the People’s Republic of China: Notice
of Extension of Time Limit for the Final
Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
October 29, 2007.
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Dates: November 6,
2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laurel LaCivita or Matthew Quigley,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone (202) 482–4243 or (202) 482–
4551, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 27, 2006, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)
published the initiation of the
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on folding
metal tables and chairs from the
People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). See
Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Request for Revocation in
Part, 71 FR 42626 (July 27, 2006). On
July 11, 2007, the Department published
the preliminary results. See Folding
Metal Tables and Chairs from the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 72 FR 37703
(July 11, 2007). This review covers the
period June 1, 2005, through May 31,
2006. The final results are currently due
by November 8, 2007.
Extension of Time Limit for Final
Results of Review
Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
Act’’), the Department shall make a final
determination in an administrative
review of an antidumping duty order
PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06NON1.SGM
within 120 days after the date on which
the preliminary results are published.
The Act further provides, however, that
the Department may extend that 120-
day period to 180 days after the
preliminary results if it determines it is
not practicable to complete the review
within the foregoing time period.
The Department finds that it is not
practicable to complete the final results
of the administrative review of folding
metal tables and chairs from the PRC
within the 120-day period due to
complex issues the parties have raised
regarding surrogate financial statements.
In accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A)
of the Act, the Department is extending
the time period for completion of the
final results of this review by 30 days to
150 days after the date on which the
preliminary results were published.
Therefore, the final results are now due
no later than December 7, 2007.
This notice is published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A)
and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: October 29, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–21809 Filed 11–5–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–489–807]
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing
Bars From Turkey; Final Results of
New Shipper Review
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 10, 2007, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary
results of the new shipper review of the
antidumping duty order on certain steel
concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from
Turkey. This review covers one
producer/exporter of the subject
merchandise to the United States, Ege
Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S./Ege Dis
Ticaret A.S. (Ege Celik). The period of
review (POR) is April 1, 2006, through
September 30, 2006.
Based on our analysis of the
comments received, we have made no
changes to the margin calculations.
Therefore, the final results do not differ
from the preliminary results. The final
weighted–average dumping margin for
Ege Celik is listed below in the section
entitled ‘‘Final Results of Review.’’
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 6, 2007.
06NON1
 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 6, 2007 / Notices
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina
Itkin, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2,
Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,
DC, 20230; telephone (202) 482–0656.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This new shipper review covers one
producer/exporter, Ege Celik. On
September 10, 2007, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
preliminary results of the new shipper
review of the antidumping duty order
on rebar from Turkey. See Notice of
Preliminary Results of New Shipper
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order
on Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing
Bars from Turkey, 72 FR 51598 (Sep. 10,
2007) (Preliminary Results).
We invited parties to comment on our
preliminary results of this review. In
October 2007, we received a case brief
with respect to the preliminary results
from the domestic industry (i.e., Gerdau
AmeriSteel Corporation, Commercial
Metals Company (SMI Steel Group), and
Nucor Corporation), and we received a
rebuttal brief with respect to the
preliminary results from Ege Celik.
Scope of the Order
The product covered by this order is
all stock deformed steel concrete
reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths
and coils. This includes all hot–rolled
deformed rebar rolled from billet steel,
rail steel, axle steel, or low–alloy steel.
It excludes (i) plain round rebar, (ii)
rebar that a processor has further
worked or fabricated, and (iii) all coated
rebar. Deformed rebar is currently
classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
under item numbers 7213.10.000 and
7214.20.000. The HTSUS subheadings
are provided for convenience and
customs purposes. The written
description of the scope of this
proceeding is dispositive.
Period of Review
The POR is April 1, 2006, through
September 30, 2006.
Bona Fide Sale Analysis
In the preliminary results, we found
that Ege Celik’s reported U.S. sale
during the POR was a bona fide sale, as
required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(c),
based on the totality of the facts on the
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
record. See the Memorandum to James
Maeder from Irina Itkin entitled,
‘‘Analysis of Ege Celik Endustrisi Sanayi
ve Ticaret A.S./Ege Dis Ticaret A.S.’s
Bona Fides As A New Shipper in the
New Shipper Review of Certain Steel
VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:55 Nov 05, 2007 Jkt 214001
Concrete Reinforcing Bars from
Turkey,’’ dated September 4, 2007, for
further discussion of our price and
quantity analysis.
For the final results, the Department
continues to find that Ege Celik’s sole
U.S. sale during the POR was a bona
fide commercial transaction.
Turkish Government Competition
Board’s Report
In this review, the domestic interested
parties submitted a report by the
Turkish Government Competition Board
(the Competition Board) regarding the
Turkish steel industry. The domestic
interested parties argued that this report
demonstrates that Ege Celik, as well as
the vast majority of the Turkish rebar
industry, engaged in anti–competitive
behavior prior to and during the POR by
colluding with other producers to
manipulate home market and export
prices and to suppress costs. As noted
in our preliminary findings with respect
to the Competition Board’s report, we
did not rely on the evidence or
conclusions in the Competition Board’s
report as the basis for any findings in
this review. Rather, we investigated
whether the facts during the POR would
cause us to dismiss reported home
market prices or costs within the
confines of U.S. antidumping duty law
and regulations. See the August 31,
2007, Memorandum from Shawn
Thompson, Irina Itkin, and Brianne
Riker to David M. Spooner, entitled
‘‘Preliminary Finding on Issues Related
to the Turkish Government Competition
Board’s Reports in Certain Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bars from
Turkey.’’ For purposes of the final
results, the domestic industry neither
provided any new arguments with
respect to the information on the record
pertaining to the Competition Board’s
report or the respondents’ reported
costs, prices, and affiliations that were
not already addressed in our
preliminary findings, nor commented
on specific sections of our preliminary
findings with which it disagreed.
Rather, the domestic industry merely
stated its opposition to our preliminary
findings and reiterated its previous
arguments. Therefore, we continue to
find that: 1) there is no basis to find that
Ege Celik is affiliated with any other
Turkish rebar producers; 2) there is no
basis to conclude that the sales and cost
data in this review are distorted by non–
market considerations and, thus, it is
appropriate to rely on this data for
purposes of the final results; and 3) Ege
Celik is entitled to a new shipper review
because it has met the requirements set
forth under 19 CFR 351.214(b). For
further discussion, see the Issues and
PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06NON1.SGM
62629
Decision Memorandum (Decision
Memo) at Comment 1.
Cost of Production
As discussed in the Preliminary
Results, we conducted an investigation
to determine whether Ege Celik made
home market sales of the foreign like
product during the POR at prices below
its cost of production (COP) within the
meaning of section 773(b)(1) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
We performed the cost test for these
final results following the same
methodology as in the Preliminary
Results.
We found 20 percent or more of Ege
Celik’s sales of a given product during
the reporting period were at prices less
than the weighted–average COP for this
period. Thus, we determined that these
below–cost sales were made in
‘‘substantial quantities’’ within an
extended period of time and at prices
which did not permit the recovery of all
costs within a reasonable period of time
in the normal course of trade. See
sections 773(b)(2)(B) - (D) of the Act.
Therefore, for purposes of these final
results, we found that Ege Celik made
below–cost sales not in the ordinary
course of trade. Consequently, we
disregarded these sales and used the
remaining sales as the basis for
determining normal value pursuant to
section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case briefs by
parties to these reviews, and to which
we have responded, are listed in the
Appendix to this notice and addressed
in the Decision Memo, which is adopted
by this notice. Parties can find a
complete discussion of all issues raised
in these reviews and the corresponding
recommendations in this public
memorandum, which is on file in the
Central Records Unit, room B–099, of
the main Department building.
In addition, a complete version of the
Decision Memo can be accessed directly
on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/
frn/. The paper copy and electronic
version of the Decision Memo are
identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of comments
received, we have made no changes to
the margin calculations. Because the
margin calculations for Ege Celik have
not changed from the preliminary
results, the preliminary calculations
placed on the record of this review are
adopted as the final margin calculations.
06NON1
 62630 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 6, 2007 / Notices

Final Results of Review cash deposit rate for merchandise DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
We determine that the following produced by Ege Celik Endustrisi ve
weighted–average margin percentage Ticaret A.S. and exported by Ege Dis International Trade Administration
exists for the period April 1, 2006, Ticaret A.S. will be the rate shown A–489–807
through September 30, 2006: above, except if the rate is less than 0.50
percent, de minimis within the meaning Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing
Margin of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), the cash Bars From Turkey; Final Results of
Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter Percent- deposit will be zero; 2) for previously Antidumping Duty Administrative
age Review and New Shipper Review and
investigated companies not listed above,
Ege Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret the cash deposit rate will continue to be Determination To Revoke in Part
A.S./Ege Dis Ticaret A.S. ....... 0.00 the company–specific rate published for AGENCY: Import Administration,
the most recent period; 3) if the exporter International Trade Administration,
Assessment is not a firm covered in this review, or Department of Commerce.
The Department shall determine, and the less–than-fair–value (LTFV) SUMMARY: On May 4, 2007, the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection investigation, but the manufacturer is, Department of Commerce (the
(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties the cash deposit rate will be the rate Department) published the preliminary
on all appropriate entries, in accordance established for the most recent period results of the administrative review and
with 19 CFR 351.212. Pursuant to 19 for the manufacturer of the new shipper review of the antidumping
CFR 351.212(b)(1), because we have the merchandise; and 4) the cash deposit duty order on certain steel concrete
reported entered value of Ege Celik’s rate for all other manufacturers or reinforcing bars (rebar) from Turkey.
U.S. sale, we have calculated an exporters will continue to be 16.06 These reviews cover six producers/
importer–specific assessment rate based percent, the All Others rate established exporters of the subject merchandise to
on the ratio of the total amount of in the LTFV investigation. These the United States. The period of review
antidumping duties calculated for the deposit requirements, when imposed, (POR) is April 1, 2005, through March
examined sale to the total entered value shall remain in effect until further 31, 2006.
of that sale. We will instruct CBP to notice. Based on our analysis of the
assess antidumping duties on all comments received, we have made
appropriate entries covered by this Notification to Importers certain changes in the margin
review if the importer–specific calculations. Therefore, the final results
assessment rate calculated in the final This notice serves as a preliminary differ from the preliminary results. The
results of this review is above de reminder to importers of their final weighted–average dumping
minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent). responsibility, under 19 CFR margins for the reviewed firms are listed
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we 351.402(f)(2), to file a certificate below in the section entitled ‘‘Final
will instruct CBP to liquidate without regarding the reimbursement of Results of Review.’’
regard to antidumping duties any antidumping duties prior to liquidation Finally, we have determined to revoke
entries for which the assessment rate is of the relevant entries during this the antidumping duty order with
de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). review period. Failure to comply with respect to Turkish rebar produced and
See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). The this requirement could result in the exported by Colakoglu Metalurji A.S.
Department intends to issue assessment Secretary’s presumption that and Colakoglu Dis Ticaret A.S.
instructions to CBP 15 days after the reimbursement of antidumping duties (collectively ‘‘Colakoglu’’) and Diler
date of publication of these final results occurred and the subsequent assessment Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S.,
of review. of double antidumping duties. Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Turizm
The Department clarified its Ticaret A.S., and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S.
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on This new shipper review is issued
and published in accordance with (collectively ‘‘Diler’’).
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and
sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i)(1) of EFFECTIVE DATE: November 6, 2007.
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 the Act, as well as 19 CFR 351.214(i). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This Itkin, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2,
Dated: October 31, 2007.
clarification will apply to entries of Import Administration, International
Stephen J. Claeys, Trade Administration, U.S. Department
subject merchandise during the POR
produced by Ege Celik for which it did Acting Assistant Secretary for Import of Commerce, 14th Street and
Administration. Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,
not know its merchandise was destined
for the United States. In such instances, Appendix – Issues in Decision DC, 20230; telephone (202) 482–0656.
we will instruct CBP to liquidate Memorandum SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
unreviewed entries at the All–Others Background
rate if there is no rate for the General Issues
intermediate company(ies) involved in The administrative review covers the
Issues Related to the Turkish
the transaction. following five producers/exporters:
Government Competition Board’s Colakoglu; Diler; Ekinciler Demir ve
Cash Deposit Requirements Report Celik Sanayi A.S. and Ekinciler Dis
Further, the following deposit [FR Doc. E7–21805 Filed 11–5–07; 8:45 am] Ticaret A.S. (collectively ‘‘Ekinciler’’);
requirements will be effective for all BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

shipments of rebar from Turkey entered, Endustrisi A.S. (Habas); and Kaptan
or withdrawn from warehouse, for Metal Dis Ticaret ve Nakliyat A.S. and
consumption on or after the publication Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve
date of the final results of this Ticaret A.S. (collectively ‘‘Kaptan’’).
administrative review, as provided for The new shipper review covers one
by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: 1) the producer/exporter, Kroman Celik

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:55 Nov 05, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06NON1.SGM 06NON1